Path: shell.portal.com!svc.portal.com!uunet!in2.uu.net!newsfeed.internetmci.com!howland.reston.ans.net!news-e2a.gnn.com!newstf01.news.aol.com!newsbf02.news.aol.com!not-for-mail
From: catdeville@aol.com (CatDeville)
Newsgroups: alt.apocalypse,alt.atheism,alt.bible.prophecy,alt.blasphemy,alt.christnet,alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now,alt.evil,alt.magick,alt.music.black-metal,alt.pagan,alt.religion.wicca,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.black,alt.rock-n-roll.metal.death,alt.satanism
Subject: Re: Anybody in this newsgroup, read this, and let's stop the stupid questions!
Date: 5 Apr 1996 13:26:51 -0500
Organization: America Online, Inc. (1-800-827-6364)
Lines: 55
Sender: root@newsbf02.news.aol.com
Message-ID: <4k3olb$i2d@newsbf02.news.aol.com>
References: <4k0h66$gh2@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>
NNTP-Posting-Host: newsbf02.mail.aol.com
X-Newsreader: AOL Offline Reader
Xref: shell.portal.com alt.apocalypse:1076 alt.atheism:284876 alt.bible.prophecy:24859 alt.blasphemy:6168 alt.christnet:95852 alt.christnet.second-coming.real-soon-now:18767 alt.evil:24275 alt.magick:70949 alt.music.black-metal:3063 alt.pagan:153802 alt.religion.wicca:25611 alt.rock-n-roll.metal.black:2826 alt.rock-n-roll.metal.death:30561 alt.satanism:40742

In article <4k0h66$gh2@nntp.ucs.ubc.ca>, petert@unixg.ubc.ca (Peter Thomas
Chattaway) writes:

>BZZZT.  Wrong, but thank you for playing.  First, the Bible *is* evidence

>-- every historian would agree with that -- and second, there is enough 
>satisfactory evidence for Jesus in the writings of Josephus, Tacitus, the

>Talmud, and so forth.

BZZZT.... Wrong... please go to the back of the class.

First, "every historian" certainly would not agree with the Bible being
historical evidence.  Since there are no extant texts of 'the bible',
there is no proof for this.  Go ahead.  Try and find one, just one extant
text of _all_ of the New Testament texts.  (unless there is one hidden in
the Vatican, there are none. )  The Bible is _Scripture_, and what is
written in it is accepted by it's believers on Faith!  It is a mixture of
mythic stories (look up 'mythic' from a religious viewpoint before arguing
that), parables and historical references mixed with poetry and allegory. 
Although the existance of an itinerant rabbi from Nazarene who started a
heretical judaic cult which became Christianity is accepted by _most_
scholars, they do not look to the Bible as a historical reference.  In no
case do _all_ historians (i.e. "every" historian) agree on _Anything_.

Second, there is no mention of Jesus in the writings of Josephus nor
Tacitus nor in the Talmud.  Josephus and Tacitus mention the Nazerene cult
(as, btw, do the Dead Sea Scrolls... or rather, most scholars _interpret_
the Dead Sea Scrolls to be refering to a Nazarene cult), but they do not
document the existance of Jesus per se.  The Talmud speaks of the Messiah,
but as an interpretation of prophecy... it does not refer directly to
Jesus as a historical figure either.  If it did, then it would be likely
that most Jews (especially those orthodox sects) would actually be
Christians (or at least Messianic Jews).

The existance of Jesus is not a historical "fact"... but that doesn't mean
that he did not exist.  For centuries they thought that Troy was only a
myth... until they unearthed it.  The stories of Troy still have mythic
proportions, but the city itself exists and many of the battles were
actually fought.  Arthur of Camelot is not a historical "fact", but
historians postulate that the myth grew from an actual man... Arturus, a
Roman general during the occupation of Britany.  Simply because something
cannot be proven does not mean that it did not exist.  And simply because
there is no proof or because something is a 'myth' ( a religious story
which carries deep meanings) does not mean that it is not 'true'.  

Religion is, by definition, based on _faith_.  If it were not, it would
not be religion.  It would be science.

never thirst,
cat



CatDeville@aol.com